This is tennis too. Don' have to look so far into the past. Enjoy, and stop being so pessimistic.

You're missing the point.

You do have to go back to 1997 technology, otherwise everything herc says holds.

Capisce?

1997

Technology

Gottit?

Bill, the ^same to you. Though IMO the 2005 AO SF between Fed and Safin is the GOAT, by 2004 the baseliners had already dominated the top 20. You have to keep going back, circa 1997. Both attacking players and baseliners competed for top honors. The Top 20 was evenly divided among them. True balance and variety. It's all about variety.

Change the technology and the court speeds together. I don't think you can change the court speeds alone. These muscle men gladiators can cope with 1997 power and control (HA!!). They'll just have to camp on the baseline, not 12 feet behind. Remember, the style "baseliner" came from guys playing from the baseline!!!

At least the action was quick, no one walking around for countless minutes.

1) if you watched the match live you'd have felt like the rest of the world. What you're watching live is always going to trump footage. I didn't bother watching the Wimbledon final-not because I was boycotting it-but because I overslept. When I turned on the match, Murray was holding the trophy. No interest in watching it on delay over at ABC already knowing the outcome.

2) If I spent a day chopping the Rafter-Agassi match up into 30 second highlights like the kids do today with their matches, you'd have a far different attitude.

When I watch a match and say (while I'm posting) "Another patty cake rally between too pussies too scared to take chances!" some silly kid here will post the greatest 30 ball rally ever played and say, "What are you talking about? Look how awesome this is."

If I had the time, a lot of time, l'd teach myself how to splice video then cherry pick the hours of nonsesence from today's matches, and put it on YouTube.

I remember watching matches like these with my dad, Rafter was one of my favorite players back then.This is what I want today, clean, fast paced and uncompromised tennis.

Yeah, these super human guys can get by with the freakin' technology they used as kids. Oh, no doubt it would affect their ability to win playing defense first, second, and third and force them to play from less advantageous court position, like the court!!

So I think I'll return to T4U with this thread. Won't post as often, but will try and post now and then.On this subject I think Babble is a bit off on the tech concept. What we are seeing is the computerization of tennis. Basically, finding the absolute best way to win in a consistent way. The most effective swing for a forehand or a backhand. The most effective tactics, and the players who put them in practice the best. The homogenization of the surfaces so we didn't get the three shot rallys at Wimbledon in match after match.Though perhaps some of the newest tech wasn't around in 1997, most of the most dramtic tech changes had already happened. One thing that was different was the players. Andre Agassi and Pat Rafter both started playing tennis with wooden frames. They were just not yet taking full advantage of the larger sweet spots these frames provided, and lack of torque from the perimeter weighting many racquets had, even at that time. The Federer/Nadal/Murray/Djokovic crowd are the first to truely grow up with these frames and take advantage of the full potential of them (though maybe Fed started with a wood frame for a couple of years).The other thing that these players didn't have was poly strings. But the only thing poly strings give is an ability to swing harder to get more spin. Agassi at this time was using Prince Pro Blend which was kevlar in the main strings and synthetic cross stings. Keflar is basically high tech rope. It allowed Agassi to get pretty much the same feel as poly. The drawback to kevlar was that it didn't hold tension for that long. Not a problem for Agassi who probably had his racquets strung that day like most pros do now.I agree with Babble in that this is a better quality of tennis. More variety, and quicker pace of play. But to me the tech was already there, it was just waiting for players to figure out how to take best advantage of it.I would say; take away frames larger than 90, or even 85 sq inches, and perimeter weighting. Make the sweet spots smaller which will cut down on the more extreme low to high swings, which deliver the massive top spin players get today. Perhaps some string restrictions as well, but I'm not sure that's a great idea. As I said kevlar gives the same feel (in a sense) that poly does. Stringing a racquet at 80+ pounds also gives the same feel, but it's not good for the frame. But outlawing poly will just make the players find other ways to get a dead racquet feel so they can get the spin they want. Make the racquets smaller, and the sweet spot smaller and get rid of perimeter weighting will make the players flatten out their swings and loose some of the top spin. That may bring back some of the variety back to tennis.

« Last Edit: July 10, 2013, 07:16:46 PM by dmastous »

Logged

Is a tree as a rocking horseAn ambition fulfilledAnd is the sawdust jealous?I worry about these things .Kevin Godley & Lol Crème (I Pity Inanimate Objects)

Yeah, good to see you back, Dmast! I was saying about a month ago that I was the prick that pissed you off. We don't talk politics at T4U anymore. Anyway, glad you're back. Folks here have missed you a lot and will be thrilled to see you're back. Now all we need back is Pacer and we'll be whole again.

As for your comments, new tech (frames, strings, grommets) since 1997 have impacted control massively. Dudes just can't make the shots they pull out of their asses without crazy control.